Re: LCD vs. CRT, was:differences between colorimeter & spectrophotometer
Re: LCD vs. CRT, was:differences between colorimeter & spectrophotometer
- Subject: Re: LCD vs. CRT, was:differences between colorimeter & spectrophotometer
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 02:37:41 -0600
email@hidden
(email@hidden) writes:
>
Don't get me wrong. The ACD has its weaknesses, but overall it's just a
>
better, more efficient tool for serious color-critical work.
I think the word "overall" mitigates the word "color-critical" somewhat,
because I consider something like a Barco Reference display
color-critical. Taking a variety of factors into account, I think it's
fair to consider the Cinema Display for color work, and a properly
calibrated and profiled Cinema Display for serious color work for SOME
people. But for *color-critical* work? I'm not convinced.
I'm definitely a proponent of LCD technology. I think CRT's are big,
environmentally unfriendly (mercury content for one), power hungry, give
off heat, etc. But despite my personal preference for LCD technology, I'm
unwilling to agree that any LCD product on the market makes it suitable
for the *color-critical* category. Useful? Yes. Does it have a place in
the market? Yes. Do I recommend it for what it's capable of? Yes. But
color-critical to me is a specific thing that no LCD product currently
performs to.
>
The much-touted viewing angle "problem" seems a non-issue. Users just make
>
sure they stay on-axis for critical balance judgements.
With such a wide display, depending on what part of the image is being
corrected determines what is "on-axis." I've seen ADC's with very little
side movement have non-subtle, non-trivial shifts in gray balance when a
solid neutral gray pattern is displayed. But more than that is the
uniformity of the backlighting, which is excellent in the ADC considering
it is an LCD, but still is not on par with a good CRT.
>
In the words of one
>
large publication's imaging director "It quickly ceased to be a problem."
Fair enough - but I'd like to know what they were comparing it to when
making this statement. If they are at all representative of other large
publications, their new ADC's are probably the first displays they are
calibrating and profiling, while attempting to trust them for color work.
>
The really exciting news is that LCD is still in its infancy, with a ton of
>
research pouring in. Apple showed us just how far it could jump in one leap,
>
but stay tuned. What CCD technology did to photomultiplier scanners and
>
vidicon cameras, LCD will do ten times over to those hot, fat, ugly, dim,
>
flickering, power-hungry CRTs that hog our desktops.
>
>
Take a picture of your workstation and seal it in an envelope. Open it a
>
couple of years from now and tell me I was wrong.
No need. There is little doubt in my mind that LCD will continue to
improve dramatically. Whether it will be LCD, LEP, OLED, or something
else entirely that will actually win in the hearts of those in the
graphic arts, we will have to wait and see. It will probably be LCD, but
who knows at this point. If, on a technical level, LCD's had the kind of
viewing angle, gamut, and uniformity of a CRT, with the brightness,
stability, no flicker, lower power consumption, lighter, and all of the
other great things about LCD, of course it could quality for the
color-critical category. I just don't see that now.
>
Once you work with a properly profiled ACD (gotta use
>
ICC Display - no other software can handle it as well) you'll never go back
>
to CRT.
I will try it with ICC Display, and I'm sure I will be impressed. But I
don't think a change in software is going to solve viewing angle and
uniformity issues.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (tm)
Boulder, CO
303-415-9932